AutoHotkey Community

@Tuncay
1. we can not force unregistered guests to obey Registration Agreement Terms. If you register - you obey to terms, if not, not. So they are out of the scope. But solution would be: when unregistered guest press submit button, msgbox could appear and asking the guest does he agree on the fact that his code will be under some default AHK forum license unless he specifies another - sounds complicated, I know, I don't like it. Or forbidd guests to post - I'm against that...
2. You don't have to put simplified BSD License at the header of the script, it can be anywhere in the script - but I agree, it's not practical. But in my suggestion, I put simplified BSD license just as default license example, and wrote that maybe the community should decide which license will be default in separate pool.

Maybe to write short default AHK forum license like this:


So all you have to do is to write somewhere (example):

Simple, short, practical, very permissive, no warranty - safe
If you don't like it, you can explicitly specify some other license.

What do you say?

Give credit to the author where? how? The script may not have a gui and/or may not be visible to the user. The author may not want their name added under credits (someone else's work may not be something that you want your name on anywhere even if it contains some code that you have written). What if the author is a guest? Why not just put a request where you post your code if you would like someone to credit you instead of trying to add a license restriction to all source code posted on a forum?

So without registering you could use any/all code posted any way that you like but couldn't post any code without an agreement that the code will fall under a specific license? ...and that agreement would be agreed to anonymously of course since you would be an unregistered guest...

Firstly apologies to tank for opening this particular can of worms.

My initial idea was just to have a space where a user could, if they wanted, post a license. An added idea was that a few of the more commonly used licenses could be pre-loaded to make selection easier.

In no way do I want there to be a standard license for everything posted on this forum. I just think that if someone wants to link to a license, whether it counts for anything legally or not, it would be better to have a space for this and an integrated link.

The legality and usefulness or not of any license is for that user to figure out before they apply it to their work.

In some ways I do think that a disclaimer could be good on the Scripts and Functions forum, just as a friendly warning to newbies, and maybe a request that users say thank you if they use code that has been provided, not in a legal way or because they will get sued, but because it's nice.

@corrupt

Just like this?

That's the most permissive license --> no rights reserved + disclaimer of liability.
Maybe we should reserve at least moral rights of the author? Like;
- if redistributed in source code --> put a credit somewhere in a source code and external documentation if exists
- if redistributed in binary form --> put a credit somewhere in "About MsgBox" and external documentation if exists
(If you don't want to be mentioned in "thank you section" you must explicitly specify that.)

No.
- if license is specified - specified license applies (of course if work is qualified for copyright!)
- if license is not specified - see my post above
No. If you don't agree - you don't agree. As a sanction for not agreeing we could:
- forbidd unregistered guest to post - I'm against that
- allow them to post (I'm for that) - than current legal situation on this forum applies: 1) if work is qualified for copyright, and unregistered guest didn't specify license it is totally protected by default (but it may be very difficult or almost impossible to determine identity of the author - so how could one know who is copyright holder - hard to prove that he is the author - very difficult to protect him on court) 2) if work is
NO, I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE THE WHOLE ELABORATE AGAIN... THAT'S ENOUGH! (I'm angry on myself - not on you corrupt )

I just want people to understand the situation about the code posted here that is under somebodies copyright:
No licence = most restrictive license --> because the work is totally protected by default!

I think the mere fact that other languages PHP any microsoft environ based forums dont address this can almost be taken as proof that this is a moot subject as Sinkfaze cited from the copyright site. but all you idiots seem bent on somehow thinking your special its freakin amazing how many people are stupid enuff to make an issue about meaninglessly licensing code that isnt even going to qualify as intelectual property because its just an implementation of someone elses ideas not even a new application

_________________
No matter what your oppinion Please join this discussion
Formal request to Polyethene

You would be surprised what can be protected by copyright - even some stupid simple paintings, photos, or even pantomime, and the computer code, of course. The work does not need to be useful, finished, amazing, etc. to be protected by copyright! Code that represents unfinished application can be protected by copyright too (under some conditions).

But, it's true that even the court and the lawyers sometimes have big problems to determine is some creation capable to be protected by copyright or not. It's sometimes very vague...

I'm not really arguing for a default license any more, but I do think a sticky with a disclaimer wouldn't go amiss. Something like that any code you post, unless covered by a license, is open to the public domain and will most likely be used without your permission and could be used in other scripts/programs.

This gives a clear message that if you don't specify a license, it can be used by anyone.

David

_________________
With mixed feelings I am stepping down from all moderation responsibilities: http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82906

For my collection of stdlib libraries, I saved the license notices of them too. Where I could not find any information about that (saying "not specified"), I used this as the "license" text:

Name: Public Domain (default-license.txt)

_________________
{1:"ahkstdlib", 2:"my libs", 3:"my apps", 4:"my license"}
--> Don't feed the troll! <--

Well TBH, it would be good to include the (un)license linked:
http://unlicense.org/

It seems the most sensible and would stop the hundreds of debates about licensing.

David

_________________
With mixed feelings I am stepping down from all moderation responsibilities: http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82906

These are the same thing. I think public domain is a great choice for a default license. Sticky post or terms of service doesn't matter, as long as a user can be plausibly assumed to be aware of the policy.

@corrupt, I think you have a backwards understanding of the function of licenses. Licenses grant rights, they do not restrict rights. Sometimes (usually) they grant rights with lots of strings attached (e.g. commercial licenses or GPL), which makes use conditional on obeying the strings. But that is not the intent here. The intent is to clarify that copying and modifying and extending willy-nilly is okay, which in any case is going to be de-facto practice no matter what.

The policy should not be aimed at changing any behavior. It should merely try to communicate that that behavior is sanctioned.

Risky... My opinion: wrong assumption in most of countries because we are talking about copyright. (For patents --> another story)
True.
+1
+1




Suggestion for those who would like "public domain license" as AHK forum default license (legal note: public domain is not a "license", but never mind)
In other words, [no license] = [maximally permissive license + disclaimer of liability]

Sounds good to me.